After a 12 hour 30 minute marathon session, Tsai Shou-hsuing and the Full Court have taken the Chen corruption case into a new realm. One. The Full Court ruled that Chen Shui-bian will be returned to custody, but that he may receive visitors. Two. Chen Shui-bian has admitted that Chen Chih-chung and his wife are seeking a plea bargain. Three. Chen Shui-bian alleges that he classified the "Southern Front Project" as Top Secret on the recommendation of his attorneys and advisors. These developments introduce new political and legal factors into the Chen corruption case.

The main impact of taking Chen back into custody, but allowing him to receive visitors, will be political. The last time the Special Investigation Unit took Chen Shui-bian into custody, prosecutors dispatched officials to meet with his defense attorneys and videotaped the meeting. It may continue using this approach. Even though it will be allowing Chen to receive visitors, this approach should enable prosecutors to reduce the possibility of collusion. But since the prohibition on receiving visitors has been lifted, the Taipei Detention Center is likely to become Chen Shui-bian's public relations center and bully pulpit. For example, visits by Wu Shu-chen, Chao Chien-ming and his wife, and Chen Chih-chung and his wife, will all become front page news. Also, whether Tsai Ing-wen or any Green Camp personalities visit him, or fail to visit him, will become a political issue.

Detention is not the same as imprisonment. Chen Shui-bian may still be able to post bail and obtain release. His current efforts are undoubtedly a fight for re-release or release on bail. Next year's county magistrates and city mayors elections are also targets. If Ah-Bian is unable to play a role in next year's county magistrates and city mayors elections, he will lose a lot of his political bargaining chips. Therefore, regardless of whether he is kept in custody, he will attempt to manipulate the outcome of the county magistrates and city mayors elections. The only difference will be whether he can emerge from detention to campaign on behalf of the candidates. Either that, or an endless stream of candidates will visit him while he remains in custody. Chen Shui-bian knows he can not be optimistic about the outcome of his trial. Therefore he must make a last ditch effort on the political front. Being taken into custody but not being prohibited from receiving visitors, may provide Ah-Bian with the perfect bully pulpit. To the Democratic Progressive Party however, Ah-Bian being allowed to receive visitors amounts to headache, because whether or not DPP leaders ought to visit him will become a new bone of contention.

Chen Shui-bian says Chen Chih-chung and his wife are seeking a plea bargain, and would like to return 570 million dollars from their overseas accounts. This was what the Special Investigation Unit referred to when it described Chen and his wife as "unrepentant," and meriting "heavy punishment." It said the 570 million dollars, whose whereabouts were unclear, was evidence in danger of disappearing. Only then was it able to smoke Chen Shui-bian out of his lair. In order to save his son and his daughter-in-law, under pressure of being returned to custody, Chen Shui-bian was already vulnerable. Chen Chih-chung and his wife's plea bargain, at this late date, is less a plea bargain than an attempt to get off scot-free. Investigative authorities should demand that the "Cape 700 million" and the 570 million in the bank vault be returned. They should order the Chen family to map out their entire money-laundering operation, Including their accounts in the United States and Japan. Otherwise, how can their "confession" be considered a genuine confession? A genuine plea bargain?

During the hearing, Chen Shui-bian confessed that the "Southern Front Project" was phony. He blamed his attorneys for urging him to classify the "Southern Front Project" as Top Secret. This amounted to a confession that his classification of evidence as Top Secret was phony, and that his motive was to conceal evidence of criminal wrongdoing and obstruct justice. In other words, Chen Shui-bian has confessed to instructing his attorneys to conceal evidence, and of abusing the power of his office to destroy evidence. This of course is something the Special Investigation Unit also ought to investigate immediately.

With these revelations, Chen Shui-bian's protestations of innocence rang utterly hollow. They further undermined whatever trust might have existed among Chen Shui-bian, his codefendants, witnesses, attorneys, and supporters. On the one hand, Chen Shui-bian confessed that he fabricated the "Southern Front Project." On the other hand, he blames his attorneys and advisors. He did something similar when he leaked that Wu Li-pei laundered money for a "nation-building fund," when he leaked that Tsai Chen-yuan arranged to stash Chen's money in a bank vault, when he blamed Premier Yu Shyi-kun for the Longtan scandal, and when he leaked information about Lee Teng-hui's own money laundering operations. In short, anyone can become Chen's sacrificial victim, as long as he can help Chen gain acquittal, including Lee Teng-hui, Yu Shyi-kun, or Ku Li-hsiung.

Chen Shui-bian's lack of trustworthiness, his lack of scruples, his willingness to betray his comrades, ought to have alerted witnesses and defense attorneys to the dangers of colluding with Chen. Yesterday, after the court dajourned, Cheng Wen-long actually said he was unaware of any "plea bargain." Even Chen's own defense attorneys have been kept in the dark.

Tsai Shou-hsuing has succeeded in getting Ah-Bian back into custody. Chen Shui-bian originally claimed he was completely innocent. Then he admitted that Chen Chi-chung was seeking a plea bargain. Finally he claimed his attorneys and advisors urged him to conceal evidence. Tsai has essentially forced Chen Shui-bian to reenact his defense strategy, from beginning to end, and forced him to reveal a number of major holes in his story. This is beneficial to the future progress of the trial. The court's decision to detain Chen, but not prohibit him from receiving visitors, has responded to "civil rights" demands. But it has also left Chen Shui-bian walking a legal and political tightrope. It may seem to have provided a political stage for Chen Shui-bian. But it also leaves Chen Shui-bian vulnerable, caught between legal and political battlelines. When Chen must appear before a judge, or can campaign on behalf of a candidate, is not up to him.

According to the western calendar, it is New Year's Eve. Chen Shui-bian is back in custody. For the public on Taiwan, isn't this a case of "out with the old, and in with the new?"

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Taiwan 2008: From the Second Change in Ruling Parties to the Indictment of Chen Shui-bianUnited Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) A Translation December 30, 2008

In 2008 the political scene on Taiwan underwent a dramatic change. At the beginning of 2008, the island underwent a second change in ruling parties. By the end of 2008, on December 12, Chen Shui-bian had been indicted for corruption and money-laundering. In 2008 cross-Strait relations also underwent a dramatic change. At the beginning of 2008, agitation for a "Join the UN Plebiscite." At the end of 2008, implementation of direct links.

These two threads: internal political struggle and cross-Strait relations affect each other. This article will address the first thread, internal political struggle. Cross-Strait relations will be addressed in a separate article.

The second change in ruling parties has totally replaced the nation's value system. With regards internal political struggles, Ma Ying-jeou's vision of our nation's future has replaced Chen Shui-bian's. Ma has adopted a no to reunification, no to Taiwan independence, no to nation-building, and no to war position. Ma has chosen to uphold the constitution, implement the constitution, amend the constitution, and to reject the "rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." With regards cross-Strait relations, Ma champions direct links and rejects confrontation. Ma champions ethnic harmony and rejects social divisiveness. Ma champions clean government and rejects corruption. Ma has rejected officials such as Tu Cheng-sheng, Chuang Kuo-jung, and Ye Sheng-mao. We can now look forward to the emergence of a new kind of public official.

Therefore this is not your ordinary, run of the mill, "second change in ruling parties." The nation's entire value system has been completely replaced. Of the 113 seats in the Legislature, the KMT won 82, over two-thirds. The Blue Camp won 86, over three-quarters. During the presidential election Ma Ying-jeou received over 58 percent of the vote, 7.65 million ballots. These results show that the nation's value system has been replaced, in toto. The Democratic Progressive Party, held hostage by Chen Shui-bian, was defeated in the legislative elections and the presidential election. It was defeated because voters punished it for its pro independence stance and rampant corruption. December 12th's indictment represents Chen Shui-bian being brought to justice for his crimes.

In fact, 2008 represents voters making a decisive, across the board choice about their future. The lifting of martial law was followed by two decades of political and economic turmoil. By promoting "nativist values," Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian unquestionably cultivated a "Taiwan-centric" mentality. Lee Teng-hui established a precedent for Taiwan independence. Chen Shui-bian raised the ante. Together, they tore society apart, closed the nation's doors, precipated political chaos, and deeply wounded the nation and society. Lee's black gold and Chen's unbridled greed, corrupted the body politic. As we have said before, Lee and Chen may have led Taiwan across a river, but they landed on the wrong shore. In 2008, voters attempted to heal the wounds caused by Lee and Chen's two decades of misrule. They are hoping for national rebirth and national reconstruction, and see the day Chen was indicted as a day of national rebirth and national reconstruction.

But shifting winds have taken everyone by surprise. The legislative elections and presidential election at the beginning of the year were political sanctions. The voters used the electoral system to punish Chen Shui-bian and the DPP. Chen's indictment at the end of the year, was the justice system's verdict against Chen Shui-bian's corruption. Alas, the electoral process has failed to clear the air, and the legal process has failed to distinguish right from wrong. Chen Shui-bian refuses to confess his crimes. He screams he is a "victim of political persecution." His supporters insist "Chen Shui-bian is innocent." The "reasoning" behind this equation is "If Chen Shui-bian falls, Taiwan falls!"

Meanwhile, the two elections at the beginning of the year produced two new leaders, Ma Ying-jeou and Tsai Ing-wen. So far both have failed to meet the expecations their supporters had for them. Ma Ying-jeou still can't decide how to position himself. Does he want to stand on the front line, or hide out in the rear echelon? Does he want to be both president and party chairman, or does he feel the two roles should be filled by two different people? Does he want to remain an idol to his fans, or does he want to get his hands dirty in the political mud? He seems forever paralyzed by his own media image. When it comes to real world leadership, he often finds himself at a complete loss. As for Tsai Ing-wen, she attempted to initiate a "post-Chen Shui-bian era," only to find herself marginalized by the Green Camp and the DPP. Her hopes of transforming the Democratic Progressive Party have been dashed.

The year 2008 was an historic opportunity for reflection about the ROC's democracy. This golden opportunity is in danger of being frittered away. Ma Ying-jeou is unable to inspire the nation. Tsai Ing-wen is unable to change the DPP. The entire island remains caught in the maze of the Chen corruption case. A minority of Chen Shui-bian supporters have paralyzed the island, and are choking the life out of her.

Faced with such a situation, the public can not help wondering. What, if anything, can save democracy and constitutional government? America's has elected a black man president. India on the other hand, has been unable to change its caste system. Both are democracies. So why are the results so different?

Can the second change in ruling parties in 2008 save the ROC's democracy and constitutional government? Can the prosecution of the Chen corruption case save the ROC's democracy and constitutional government? And if not, what can?

Monday, December 29, 2008

Wearing a Helmet, Welcoming the Pandas
United Daily News editorial
A Translation
December 29, 2008

Cross-strait links have been kicked off amidst an air of festivity. The KMT-CPC forum concluded with much to show. A pair of pandas from Sichuan named Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan are coming to Taiwan as ambassadors of peace. Yet at a time when the Taiwan Strait is filled with the atmosphere of reconciliation, President Ma Ying-jeou donned an army helmet while reviewing the troops during live-fire exercises.

President Ma said that cross-Strait relations may be improving, but that does not mean we no longer need a military capability. We still need to make military preparations and enhance up our military capabilities. We must not negotiate out of fear.

President Ma is not raining on everyones' parade. He is merely reminding us that we must remain vigilant amidst peace. Indeed, the government must not reduce its military preparedness. Although the mainland has repeatedly stated that it desires a peaceful solution to the Taiwan problem, it has not changed its position on the use of force. The public must be aware of this, and remain cautious.

During decades of cross-Strait confrontation, the mainland's policy toward Taiwan has gradually softened. Early rhetoric calling for a "Taiwan bloodbath" and "the liberation of Taiwan" has changed to "peaceful reunification and one country, two systems," and to "maintaining the status quo," and finally to implicit recognition of "One China, Different Interpretations." This shows that the mainland authorities have adopted a calmer attitude. The "Anti-Secession Law" reserves the right to use of force against "de jure Taiwan independence." Nevertheless the mainland ought to make clear that it will not use force against Taiwan, for at least three reasons.

One. Those who support and participate in the Taiwan independence movement are a minority. The vast majority of the public on Taiwan want peaceful coexistence. It is unfair for the mainland to intimidate everyone on Taiwan in response to the behavior of a small number of radical Taiwan independence advocates. It also runs counter to the mainland's policy of "pinning its hopes on the people of Taiwan."

Two. Modern weapons of mass destruction are extraordinarily destructive. If the mainland attacks Taiwan, it could turn Taiwan into a wilderness. Would the mainland really want such a result? People may disagree about how many died during the 228 Incident in 1947. But bad blood lingers 60 years later. If the mainland is determined to attack Taiwan, the result may be corpses everywhere. How will they deal with the aftermath? How will they answer to history?

Three. The mainland has always referred to the public on Taiwan as compatriots. What is the rationale behind using modern weapons to kill one's fellow countrymen? Two decades after the Tiananmen incident, mainland officials still refuse to face the truth. One reason is they want to maintain social stability. The other is probably inner guilt. How can even one such mistake be allowed to occur on Taiwan?

Of these three reasons, we would like to place special emphasis on the third. On the 24th of this month, the United Daily News' "Public Forum" published an editorial entitled "Three times Chiang Kai-shek prevented the the United States from using nuclear weapons against the Chinese mainland." According to Chiang's diary, the United States was secretly preparing to attack the Chinese mainland during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It was considering dropping atomic bombs. Chiang Kai-shek clearly expressed his opposition, and sought to dissuade or discourage advocates of such a move.

Ever since the Communist Party defeated Chiang Kai-shek and forced him to retreat to Taiwan, he thought of nothing but "retaking the mainland," and "avenging a national humilation." But the ROC's military power was far from sufficient. Since the United States was willing to help, by using its bombs, in principle Chiang should have been pleased. He should have taken the easy way out. But Chiang Kai-shek was determined not to do so, and made this quite clear in his diary. A nuclear strike against the mainland "would have an adverse impact on the people." Many who have read this article feel that the mainland authorities' attitude toward Taiwan ought to be the same as Mr. Chiang's. Only then can cross-Strait relations improve.

During the Spring and Autumn Period, warlords fought each other tooth and nail, year after year. Corpses filled the trenches. King Xiang of Wei asked Mencius, "How can we achieve peace?" Mencius replied, "By promoting unity." King Xiang of Wei asked "But who can promote unity?" Mencius replied, "He who is unwilling to kill others can promote unity."

During the ROC's 2008 presidential election one of the primary planks in Ma Ying-jeou's campaign platform was a peace agreement with the mainland. Following his election and inauguration he has continued to promote this proposal. This sort of unwillingness to kill others is the proper basis for cross-Strait interaction. A peace agreement offers people on both sides of the Strait the hope of peace. It offers a long-term framework for win/win cross-Strait interaction.

If the mainland relinquishes the use of force against Taiwan, that will help convince the public on Taiwan that the mainland has put humanism and human rights above political struggle. When the panda ambassadors for peace arrived on Taiwan, President Ma wore an army helmet and spoke of war and peace. The dramatic contrast reflects Taiwan's hopes and fears for cross-Strait relations.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Just exactly who is responsible for the financial crisis of the century? Nobel laureate in economics history Joseph E. Stiglitz says the crisis is the result of a series of policy failures. He sternly criticized former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan's laissez-faire policies for creating a major catastrophe. He said that when Greenspan lowered interest rates a few years ago, capital flooded the market. Coupled with a lack of market standards, this eventually led to the collapse of financial markets. He believes the financial crisis is forcing many nations' financial supervisory agencies to re-examine their position regarding financial liberalization.

Since the outbreak of the financial crisis, Greenspan has been roundly criticized. The criticisms have fallen into two categories. One. Greenspan's last wave of rate cuts lowered Interest rates too far, and for too long. It planted the seeds of the housing market bubble and inflation. Two. The Federal Reserve Bank adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward financial markets. It failed to fulfill the role of financial supervisor. It allow investment banks to take risks, and commercial banks to make housing loans to consumers unable to pay them back.

Faced with criticism, Greenspan, who believes in liberalism, came to his own defense. He said it was unfair to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking. But in late October of this year, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing, he admitted for the first time that he made a mistake. He said he was wrong to have assumed that, based on self-interest, banks would do all they could to protect the rights and interests of shareholders. He said he was wrong to have opposed more stringent controls on derivatives.

Investment bank Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy on September 15. The U.S. government launched an unprecedented relief program amounting to 700 billion USD, 250 billion of which will prop up the bank, by providing it with additional capital. But by mid-November, the tense situation in financial markets still had not eased. The situation remains worrisome. Stiglitz does not believe these programs can alleviate the situation in a timely manner. It's all a matter of confidence. In the final analysis, the basic mistake is to believe that "the market can regulate itself, and that the government's role ought to be reduced to a minimum."

The financial crisis was caused by the U.S. housing market bubble. It spread to the banking system, and caused the stock market to crash. Not only did banks distrust other banks, banks and their customers were also forced to re-examine their relationship. Millions in the United States have had their homes repossessed. Countless more workers are now unemployed. No one expected such tragic consequences Even Greenspan was forced to admit his mistakes. But for others, what really matters, is how to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

Look at the United States. Now look at the Republic of China. Before and after the change in ruling parties, financial liberalization and deregulation have been an endlessly repeated mantra. But our financial markets have never been either sufficiently open, or sufficiently disciplined. The Ma administration began repeating the mantra over a decade ago. He spoke of plans for an Asian-Pacific financial center, and advocated liberalization and deregulation. But in the eyes of foreign banks, our level of financial liberalization was a far cry from that of Europe and the United States. Leave aside the question of whether agencies responsible for financial supervision neglected their duties. Our financial industry's compliance with the law is also a far cry from those in Europe and the United States.

Take one of the most sensitive issues, money-laundering controls, for example. The ROC has long been diligent in combatting international money-laundering. But when the Chen family money-laundering scandals erupted, many heavyweight financial holding company bosses were implicated. Some confessed that they helped the Chen family launder both NT dollars and US dollars through dummy overseas accounts. Some helped the Chen family move 740 million NT in cash out of their bank vaults. These are not things bankers normally do. Frankly, without such experts advising and assisting the Chen family, the Chen family would never have been able to launder several billion dollars in money by itself.

For an banker to engage in money-laundering is a serious matter. Not only would their integrity be brought into question, they would face criminal charges. But on Taiwan, many bankers involved in money-laundering continued to serve as board chairmen or general managers. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions passively waited for prosecutors to investigate. So far they have neither attempted to understand nor to prosecute these crimes. Perhaps these agencies' tacit approval is rooted in other considerations. But the bottom line is these agencies are passively abetting these bankers' money-laundering practices.

Taiwan is dreaming if it expects to become an Asian-Pacific financial center amidst the current financial crisis. Taiwan's bankers have shown no intention of complying with even the spirit of the law. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions have done absolutely nothing. Under such circumstances, our financial industry will find it hard to rid itself of its image as a notorious money-laundering center. Agencies responsible for the supervision of financial institutions had better understand they are responsible for these consequences.

How Will the Justice System Eliminate Political Influence?China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) A TranslationDecember 25, 2008

The Chen Shui-bian corruption and money-laundering case is under attack from both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp. Yesterday judge Chou Chan-chun publicly stated that he need not try the Chen case. He said that if Tsai Shou-hsiung, the judge in Wu Shu-chen's State Affairs Fund case, would be willing to take over before the trial begins, he would be happy to hand the four Chen family scandals over to him. The embarrassing thing is that Tsai Shou-hsiung, fearing he would be accused of political interference, has no intention of taking sole responsibility for the Chen family corruption cases. The first problem the Taipei District Court faces is, who is going to try the case?

Is Chou Chan-chun Blue or Green? After he released Ah-Bian for the second time, the Blue Camp has been wondering. A number of legislators discovered that among the 37 cases Chou Chan-chun tried in recent years, only two defendants were not detained. The other 35 defendants were. The legislators had to laugh. Chou has never been someone who places great importance on human rights when prosecuting suspects. Even more disturbingly, the Blue Camp learned that during the presidential election Chou Chan-chun canvassed votes for Chen Shui-bian, and privately confided that had Ma Ying-jeou wound up in his courtroom during the Discretionary Fund case, Chou "would undoubtedly have sentenced him (Ma) to 10 years!" In the eyes of the Blue Camp, and even the public, Chou Chan-chun's words and deeds have left the impression that his political loyalties might determine his legal judgments.

Of course, whether Chou Chan-chun's political affiliation would actually affect his court decisions must be verified. When prosecutor Liu Chen-wu openly campaigned for Ah-Bian, he was harshly criticized. Chou Chan-chun did not campaign openly. He merely canvassed votes in private. Other members of the judiciary have undoubtedly canvassed privately for Ma Ying-jeou. As long as they do not campaign openly, that does not constitute a breach of ethics for judges. Did he in fact say that he would have sentenced Ma to 10 years? Because we never heard his remark in context, it is hard to say whether he is Blue or Green. For example, he might merely be someone who demands impeccable integrity in public officials. If he sentenced Ma to 10 years, he might have sentenced Ah-Bian to an unexpectedly long term. The Blue Camp's criticism of him is a form of pressure. The Green Camp's cheering him on, isn't necessarily to his advantage. Judges perceived as ideologically biased, are likely to find their careers limited. Even if he believes himself just, any verdict he renders will be in doubt. This is without question a major blow to the credibility of the justice system.

Chou Chan-chun has yet to actually preside over Ah-Bian's case. People from all walks of life have speculated about his words and deeds, and attempted to read his thoughts. This may not be fair. But he is the trial judge in a corruption case involving a former head of state, one that has attracted the attention of the nation, and even the world. It was inevitable that he would be placed under a microscope and subject to detailed scrutiny. Such criticisms of Chou Chan-chun have precedents. Public Prosecutor Chang Hsi-huai investigated and prosecuted Wu Shu-chen for the State Affairs Fund case. He was harassed by the Green Camp wherever he went. Public officials, from the central to local government level, as well as Pan Green pressure groups and TV talk show hosts mobilized, en masse. He was even accused of "treason" for participating in cross-Strait professional exchanges. He was harassed so relentlessly he lost his composure and broke down in tears. Despite the absence of court appearances, Chou Chan-chun is in a much better situation.

The sums of money involved in the Chen family corruption scandal are mind-boggling. The trail the money left is as tangled as a spider web. The case involves every member of the First Family. The Green Camp is adept at manipulating the emotions of their followers, as a way of applying political pressure. Politics will inevitably interfere with court cases. Anyone who might threaten the Chen family, will be subjected to all manner of harassment. Anyone who might be helpful to the Chen family, will win their applause.

The Blue Camp has circled the Chen family scandal for three or four years. It has not mobilized its forces to the same extent as the Green Camp, but it feels just as strongly about such matters. During the Special Investigation Unit's investigation of the Chen family scandal, Blue Camp legislators and TV talk show hosts questioned the Special Investigation Unit's excessive deference toward Ah-Bian and other concerned parties. When the Special Investigation Unit began its first wave of prosecutions, they suspected the Special Investigation Unit of sloppiness, and wondered whether it was deliberately leaving defendants loopholes through which they could escape. They have never trusted Chou Chan-chun.

Both the Blue Camp and the Green Camp have critiqued the judicial system's handling of these cases, based on their own political stances. They have applied pressure, hoping to influence the outcome of the cases. These are all abberations from the norm. But they are also expressions of free speech, which a democratic society cannot prohibit. When independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald investigated U.S. President Bill Clinton's Monicagate and Whitewater cases, his impartiality was questioned. Many dismissed him as a "Republican." Fitzgerald was indeed a Republican. But if a Democratic president is involved in a scandal or corruption, who says a Republican cannot investigate him?

For a judge, impartiality and independence are fundamental. Is Chou Chan-chun a reformist, or a hatchetman? People will draw their own conclusions. From the very beginning, the Chen corruption case has been dogged by political interference. Prosecutors and judges have hobnobbed with politicians. The judicial system needs to do some serious soul-searching, and figure out how to eliminate political influence from the trial process.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Has the Special Investigation Unit Ever Considered Detaining Wu Shu-chen?China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)A Translation December 24, 2008

The Taipei District Court ruled for the second time that former president Chen Shui-bian need not post bail, and need no longer be detained. The Special Investigation Unit's second appeal was overruled. This week it appealed to the High Court. We look forward to examining the Special Investigation Unit's evidence. But we would also like to ask the Special Investigation Unit, has it ever considered detaining Wu Shu-chen?

The Special Investigation Unit had sound reasons for detaining Chen Shui-bian. The reasons for doing so may be different now than before. But basically there are three reasons. One. Chen Shui-bian is a flight risk. Two. Chen Shui-bian may collude with others to destroy evidence. Three. The crimes Chen Shui-bian is charged with are felonies. Felonies mandate detention. These three reasons for detaining Chen apply equally to Wu Shu-chen.

First, let's talk about flight risk. When the Special Investigation Unit detained Chen Shui-bian a month ago, it did not cite flight risk as one of its reasons. The first time the court released Ah-Bain without bail, prosecutors did not offer any evidence he was a flight risk. When their second attempt to detain him failed, the prosecution said that Chen Shui-bian at times ordered his bodyguards away, leaving him on his own, for example, when he visited a Tarot reader. Whether or not Chen Shui-bian attempted to flee after ordering his bodyguards away, the prosecution's argument does not hold water. If it did, wouldn't any defendant without bodyguards, who might flee at any moment, have to be detained before trial? The logic is dubious. When the Special Investigation Unit determined that Chen Shui-bian was a flight risk, did they decide he would abandon Wu Shu-chen? We hesitate to suggest that Chen Shui-bian might flee on his own. But shouldn't we consider the possibility that the husband and wife might flee together? Wouldn't the possibility of successfully detaining them be higher if all the possibilities were considered?

Now let's talk about the possibility of collusion. The Special Investigation Unit is worried about Chen Shui-bian colluding with accomplices. Leave aside the fact that Chen Shui-bian has been walking around free for months, even years. The Special Investigation Unit's bill of indictment includes four major charges. All four of them involve Wu Shu-chen. Chen Shui-bian has never denied that Wu Shu-chen masterminded everything, understood everything. Others have said that Ah-Chen often took the lead. Since we are worried about Ah-Bian colluding, shouldn't we be worried about Ah-Chen colluding? The prosecution has no reason to detain Ah-Bian for crimes which involved only Ah-Chen and not Ah-Bian. Instead, it should think about whether to detain Ah-Chen. Especially since Ah-Chen has recently made some inappropriate remarks, wishing ill of a number of concerned parties. Ah-Chen's lawyer has demanded written transcripts. The prime suspect has expressed a desire to take the life of another suspect. Is that not reason enough to detain her? Her spouse, Ah-Bian, was detained for his role in the same cases. Shouldn't the Special Investigation Unit consider the possibility of detaining Wu Shu-chen as well?

Finally, detention is mandatory for a felony. This was the main reason Chen Shui-bian was detained. On four felony counts, Wu Shu-chen's offenses are more serious than Ah-Bian's. Crimes Ah-Bian committed, she committed. Crimes Ah-Bian didn't commit, she committed. Ah-Bian is guilty of felonies. Ah-Chen is definitely not guilty of mere misdemeanors. Doesn't the failure to detain Ah-Chen at the same time as Ah-Bian, constitute a major inconsistency in the application of the law?

Everyone on Taiwan with any common sense knows that Wu Shu-chen's physical condition is not the same as most peoples'. But that does not make Wu Shu-chen immune from prosecution. She is still subject to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Does one's physical condition exempt one from detention? The law is unclear on the point. Those who enter the detention center can be released for medical treatment. But they cannot be totally exempt from being detained. The main purpose of pre-trial detention is isolation. An entire medical team can be moved to the detention center in order to meet humanitarian requirements. But failure to detain a suspect for reasons of health cannot be justified by referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

An important objective of pre-trial detention is to ensure that the defendant appears in court. He can be either be summoned by forcible means, or detained incommunicado. These all accord with due process. No one can say they are violations of human rights. Ever since becoming a defendant in the State Affairs Fund case, Wu Shu-chen has ignored over a dozen summons to appear in court. How a defendant should be dealt with is up to the courts. A defendant has been indicted. The prosecutors of the Special Investigation Unit must consider how the defendant can be successfully prosecuted. If a felony suspect refuses to appear in court, a guilty verdict cannot be rendered, The Code of Criminal Procedure is quite clear. The Special Investigation Unit is worried about detaining Ah-Bian. But it is allowing Ah-Chen, whom it has even more reason to detain, to roam free.

Wu Shu-chen claims she is physically unable to appear in court. Yet she is able to go to the polls to vote. She is able to entertain guests at home. She was responsible for money-laundering, and for the State Affairs Fund. She had no qualms about collusion, destroying evidence, and obstructing justice, The Special Investigation Unit has wracked its brains. It had goods reason to detain Ah-Bian. But did it simultaneously allow another fish to slip through the net? It wants the support of the court, and the trust of the community. It wants to make law enforcement credible. But such a huge loophole must be plugged. Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen have been indicted. If Ah-Chen refuses to appear in court, how can the trial continue? Whether Chen Shui-bian should be detained before the trial is a trivial matter. Whether Wu Shu-chen should be detained, on the other hand, is a serious matter. It must be evaded. Has the Special Investigation Unit ever considered detaining Wu Shu-chen? If not, why not?

The two pandas born in Wolong, don't know they have been chosen as cross-Strait goodwill gifts. They don't know that two years ago the Taiwan authorities rejected them. The don't know that today they are scheduled to fly to Taiwan, and to live out their lives on this unfamiliar island. They don't know, given Taiwan's complex politics, whether everyone on Taiwan welcomes their arrival.

These two pandas may not know the meaning of their names. But Tuan Tuan and Ruan Ruan are already quite familiar with their sound, and can accurately respond to their breeder's instructions. Of course they don't know how heavy a burden they are carrying. But that will not affect their ability to bring joy to people. For many people, just seeing these big fuzzy cartoon characters play, utterly carefree, rolling about, chewing their food, an even sleeping, is enough to distract them from their cares.

Pandas have charm, not merely because of their rarity, but also because of their unusual behavior, the difficulty of breeding them, and their unique sense of joy. Their large, soft bodies are ingeniously decorated with a monochrome, black and white color scheme. They almost look like giant babies, wearing diapers, or flannel dolls, wearing bibs. Despite their bear-like bodies, they also resemble cats. The mainland refers to them as "bear cats." Taiwan refers to them as "cat bears." The genus and species are difficult to classify, and it is impossible to arrive at a single name. All of this adds to their colorful background. Their manner is mild. Their movements are slow. When they sit, they resemble human babies. This may be the reason no one ever tires of watching them.

Tuan Tuan and Ruan Ruan's arrival on Taiwan has coincided with a severe economic downturn. But for a year that can be summed up as chaotic, they are a precious New Year's present. For many parents at least, they are a story to tell the next generation. For many children, visiting the pandas will be the happiest event of the New Year. It will also be an important biology lesson. Don't look down at these two four year olds. In May they survived a magnitude 8.0 earthquake. They have been sent from Wolong to Ya An Chi Ti. They have crossed the sea to Taiwan as ambassadors of peace. For children, such a tale should be deeply moving.

Indeed, animals can sometimes teach human beings a thing or two. They can achieve something more profound than humans. Before this, reports that Australia's koala bear in the Taipei Zoo had died giving birth, and images of Emperor Penguins sharing the burden of hatching an egg, attracted public attention and public sympathy. Projecting these situations on human society provides us with valuable lessons in life. In recent years, the relentless incitement of political hatred on Taiwan, has occasionally made us think of the animal world and pure instinct. The arrival of the pandas may allow us to lower our psychological defenses, and find a common language. If we leave aside politics, and return to the animals as animals, Tuan Tuan and Ruan Ruan's arrival on Taiwan should allow us to find the meaning of peace.

From a more solemn perspective, for Taiwan these pandas, are not merely a gift. They are a trust. Mainland China has always adopted a lease system for Pandas. For Taiwan, it has generously made an outright gift. Naturally the gesture implies the politics of reunification. But from a conservationist perspective, we have taken Tuan Tuan and Ruan Ruan from their original habitat to Taiwan. We must ensure their physical and emotional well-being. We must conduct valuable scientific research on panda breeding and reproduction, in repayment of this debt. If in the future, a new generation can be successfully bred in Taipei, it would demonstrate that Taipei has made a contribution to panda ecology.

Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan's names may connote political reunification. But the larger meaning of the pandas' arrival on Taiwan is that they symbolize the spirit of peace. This dream of peace may not be something the current authorities on the two sides can achieve. But the two sides, by exchanging pandas, mei hua deer, and other animals, may allow the next generation to see the results, and ensure that the two sides never go to war.

Those who are welcoming Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan have set aside politics, and forgotten their age. They have returned to their childhood, and are looking at the pandas through the eyes of a child. That is why the pandas are such welcome angels of peace. Many people on Taiwan will give their children a rare New Year's surprise. Politicians seeking re-election, please don't undermine this common dream of parents and children.

Monday, December 22, 2008

The Really Complex Cross-Strait Issues Have Yet to Be BreachedChina Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)A Translation December 22, 2008

The two-day KMT-CPC forum ended yesterday, and successfully arrived at nine joint proposals. The forum is purely a party to party dialogue mechanism. But both parties are ruling parties, and this is the first time officials from both sides sat at the same table and held a direct dialogue. The two sides touched upon an important issue, how they will interact during the next phase. Naturally the forum meant more than fora in the past. At the very least the two sides reached a consensus. The consensus is referred to as "recommendations." But the nine recommendations are likely to comprise the real world agenda for the next stage of cross-strait interactions.
Some of the interactions during the two-day forum are worth noting. For example, Taipei has long advocated a "Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement" (CECA). During the current KMT-CPC forum, the response from Beijing was highly encouraging. To prevent Taiwan from being marginalized, Ma made a CECA-related proposal during the March presidential election. He proposed an approach that combined a free trade agreement (FTA) and the Hong Kong and Macao "Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement" (CEPA) model. On the one hand, it would avoid state-to-state disputes. On the other hand, it would avoid implications that the ROC's sovereignty had been diminished. The main focus would be to abolish cross-Strait tariffs and other economic, trade, and investment-related obstacles, to establish a common market.

This concept may or may not gain currency. It requires amendments to the laws, changes in the system, and countless policy planning details. The KMT-CPC forum can only offer concepts and initiate a dialogue. Full implementation of such polices is a long way off. But the two sides have at least reached a consensus. Industry leaders, government officials, and members of academia should now begin developing specific policies.

The KMT-CPC forum offered another promising sign. For the first time officials from the two sides held a direct dialogue. A dozen or so mainland officials attended. Five cabinet officials from the Taiwan side took leave so they could attend. As before, the participants were classified as VIPs and invited experts, rather than as government officials. The main theme of the conference remained overall industry interaction and economic cooperation. The two sides did not touch upon substantive policy. Nevertheless, officials from both sides were no longer afraid of direct contacts. Will officials adopt more direct forms of contact in the future? We shall soon see.

Whether cross-Strait interactions are proceeding too slowly or too quickly remains controversial. Critics who feel progress is too quick invariably claim that cross-Strait interactions threaten our sovereignty, or fail to address opposition party objections. Critics who feel progress is too slow, on the other hand, stress that cross-Strait interaction has already been delayed for eight years. We are still playing catch up. Such disagreement over the pace of cross-Strait interaction will persist for some time, and cannot be ignored.

Over the past few years East Asia's economy has undergone rapid economic integration. Taiwan meanwhile, has remained mired in long-term political turmoil. It has wasted a lot of time, for no good reason, Zero-sum confrontation has persisted. The conflict during Chen Yunlin's visit to Taiwan was an example. The ruling and opposition parties must communicate more on cross-Strait issues. But no matter what, we will never return to the ideological struggles of the past. Such internal struggles contribute nothing. Both the ruling and opposition parties should have learned this from experience. The ruling party cannot ignore opposition party oversight. Nor can the opposition Democratic Progressive Party persist in endless obstructionism.

With the initiation of Three Links, we have begun an irreversible process. The KMT-CPC forum has ended successfully. Next year, Chiang and Chen will meet three more times. More complex issues will be addressed. Once economic, trade, tourism, shipping, and educational issues are addressed, more sensitive issues will also arise, one after another. It's not clear how next year's participation in the WHA will be resolved. On the eve of the KMT-CPC forum, at a press conference with Thailand's media, President Ma called for Beijing to remove its missiles. His intention was clear. Many complex cross-Strait issues have yet to reach the conference table.

Friday, December 19, 2008

The Outrages of the Second Financial Reform Scandal are IntolerableChina Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)A TranslationDecember 19, 2008

The Special Investigation Unit has appealed in the Chen corruption case. Prosecutors are expected to focus on the Second Financial Reform scandal and related scandals during its next wave of investigation. The Chen corruption case bill of indictment includes the names of many prominent businessmen. One or two of them are building contractors or real estate agents. Most are heads of financial institutions. They may have played different roles in the Chen family corruption case. Some of them delivered money to Chen's official residence. Some transported money to their banks. Others gave Chen kickbacks or contributions. Others helped the Chen family launder money overseas. Some delivered money. Some transported money. Some gave money. Some laundered money. The one thing they had in common was they were all part of the inner circle of the corrupt man on the throne. Had this not been the case, the Chen family would not have entrusted so many dark and shameful secrets to them. The Special Investigation Unit's bill of indictment noted that these businessmen will be the subjects of a separate investigation. Leave criminal responsibility aside for the moment. Everyone should be concerned about the civil, social, and moral responsibility these financial industry heads owe society as a whole.

Some businessmen told the Special Investigation Unit or the media that they gave money to the president under duress, because they were intimidated by the despotic power and authority of the presidency. Most people are unlikely to buy such arguments. According to reports, Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng implied that even Wang Yung-ching gave them money. But Wang Yung-ching, the "God of Enterprise," was honest and forthright. He clearly ignored such demands. Common sense suggests that those who willingly colluded with the president had ulterior motives. Some provided kickbacks in order to profit from illicit land deals. Some contributed money in order to acquire control of Fu Hwa Bank. Some contributed money right at the moment CITIC was attempting to swallow up Mega Bank. Some helped the Chen family launder money because Chen appointed them board members of holding companies.

In short, these businessmen eagerly abetted the president's corruption, and were handsomely rewarded for their efforts. They contributed a mere two or three hundred million in cash. In return they received trillions in state-run bank assets. No matter how one looks at it, "coercion" isn't the word that comes to mind. Prominent businessmen shuttled to and from the president's official residence. They helped Ah-Bian transport money. They cooked for his wife. They connected with Ma Yung-cheng. In exchange, they were able to play god in the financial sector, and act high and mighty. Their overweening ambition was clear for all to see. Take CITIC's acquistion of Mega Bank. If not for the Hong Huo case, over two trillion in Mega Bank assets would have been swallowed up. They contributed two or three hundred million in exchange for control over trillions. No wonder these businessman beat a path to the president's official residence.

We are also concerned about years of bribery, money-laundering, and the acquistion of of state-run banks. How can we restore justice? Some officials worry that pursuing these cases could negatively impact the economy. They cite these as excuses to shield their cronies in the business world. Any official who has the chutzpah to offer such transparently phony justifications for not investigating are underestimating the public on Taiwan and its sense of justice. In 1991, a number of liberal academics launched a campaign against the KMT's party assets. They said that 40 years ago the party's acquisition of assets and expansion of powers was unjust. In terms of scale, the KMT's party assets pale before the state-run bank assets swallowed up by the DPP's Second Financial Reform. In terms of timing, the KMT's party assets were acquired over a period of 40 years. The Second Financial Reform scandal erupted only four or five years ago. In terms of consequences, the KMT underestimated public disatisfaction over its tardy disposition of party assets. Public anger accumulated, and contributed to the first change in ruling parties. The body is not yet cold from the DPP's Second Financial Reform scandal. Yet trillions of dollars in state-run bank assets make the KMT's party assets pale in comparison. Any official who invokes "economic stability" as a pretext to overlook this injustice, is fooling only himself.

Finally, to ensure justice within the financial industry is much easier than disposing of party assets. The public has the right to review and correct the abuses committed by financial industry heads. It has the right to monitor the financial industry through such agencies as the Financial Supervisory Commission. Chapters III and IV of the Financial Holding Law detail the authority to revoke, punish, manage, and relieve officials of the financial industry. As far as the public is concerned, a banker who bribes officials and helps the Chen family launder money is unquestionably an obstacle to the normal conduct of business, hence unfit for duty, regardless of whether or not he bears any criminal responsibility. The legal precedent set by Article 54 also applies. The public has the right to review the Special Investigation Unit's pursuit of criminals, whether they are being sentenced too lightly or too heavily. The public cannot tolerate the bribery of officials in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars. Prosecutors are investigating the Chen family. That is the least society expects from them. The ownership of domestic banks and state assets has illegally fallen into the hands of financial consortiums. This is also an injustice that must be corrected.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Chen Shui-bian is like a massive lead weight, weighing Taiwan down, steadily pulling it down into a dark abysss. One corruption scandal has erupted after another, provoking Blue vs. Green confrontation, consuming the island's oxygen. But Chen Shui-bian has also tested the island's mettle. Can Taiwan remove this albatross from around its neck? Can it reclaim its past vitality? These are questions both the ruling and opposition parties should be asking themselves.

Chen Shui-bian is a skilled political manipulator. He successfully hijacked Deep Green supporters and used them to control the Democratic Progressive Party. But when he was released from custody, he made the mistake of denouncing former Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien. He accused Yu of being too quick to spill his guts. Chen's denunciation chilled the hearts of Chen loyalists and provoked a backlash. DPP Legislator Chiu Yi-ying openly sided with Yu Cheng-hsien, and called for Chen's wife Wu Shu-chen to "Stand up and face the music. Stop lying. Stop abusing the goodwill of Democratic Progressive Party comrades." In fact, many people have been holding their feelings in for quite a while. Now is the time for members of the Democratic Progressive Party to speak the truth without pulling their punches.

Three simple requests: Face justice, Stop lying. And stop abusing the goodwill of party comrades. Looking back, Chen Shui-bian and his wife have always done just the opposite, and not felt one iota of remorse for their actions. They have alway sacrificed others and looked after Number One. Now they find themselves at a dead end. They are fighting back with all means possible, like cornered rats. They are hardly likely to change their nature at the drop of a hat. But now is the time for Green Camp members to confront the harsh reality of hundreds of millions of NT in being moved hither and thither. Given Chen Shui-bian and his wife's cold-bloodedness and selfishness, isn't it time for them to ask themselves the following questions: Our comrades love Ah-Bian. But does Ah-Bian love our comrades back? Or better yet, Taiwan loves Ah-Bian. But does Ah-Bian love Taiwan back?

As soon as Chiu Yi-ying spoke her mind, others in the DPP chimed in. They were no longer bound hand and foot by diehard Deep Green Chen supporters. One Chen family corruption scandal after another has erupted. If the evidence turns out to be conclusive, the Chen family must take responsibility for its crimes. By the same token, the Democratic Progressive Party must take responsibility for Chen Shui-bian. It must no longer use "due process" and "civil rights" as a pretext to evade the truth. Was the backlash among Chen's troops merely a case of unrequited love? If it involved merely personal discontent rather than moral outrage, it will not motivate the Democratic Progressive Party to thoroughly reject corruption.

For decades, the Democratic Progressive Party carried on a life or death struggle against far more powerful forces. Party members developed an intense feeling of comradeship. To cast aside such feelings is not in the nature of the Democratic Progressive Party. That is why even though many people know Ah-Bian is in the wrong, they can't bring themselves to abandon him. They even feel compelled to back him when he falsely alleges "Political persecution!" Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Tsai Ing-wen's analysis was correct. Historical factors, political realities, and personal feelings all play a part. The fact is Chen Shui-bian remains an albatross around the Democratic Progressive Party's neck.

This man, who was once your president, is consumed by unbridled greed. He is indifferent to the cost his behavior has exacted on society. He cares only about saving his own skin. This is not your run of the mill corruption. It impacts Taiwan's economic future, whether it will continue to prosper or slide into destitution. The Democratic Progressive Party has been gravely wounded. Physically and mentally, it will take time to recover. But even if the public is willing to forgive, they cannot wait patiently for the Democratic Progressive Party to grow up.

Chen Shui-bian is not merely an albatross around the Democratic Progressive Party's neck. He is an albatross around Taiwan's neck. Merely disowning him is not enough. Chen Shui-bian's wrongs were collective wrongs. His word was once law. Dissenters within the party were attacked from all sides. Those hoping to share power and partake in the spoils curried his favor. Now he has fallen from grace. Does that mean those who aided and abetted his crimes need not engage in serious soul-searching? Shifting responsibility onto him alone will not motivate this den of thieves to engage in self-introspection, and more importantly, self-betterment. History will merely repeat itself with a different cast of characters. Drawing lines in the sand is easy, especially when the other person has fallen from grace. Confronting Chen Shui-bian's crimes is difficult for the DPP, because it forces the DPP to confront its own criminal complicity. It forces the DPP to confront the things it should have done, but failed to do. It forces the DPP to confront the ideals it should have upheld, but failed to uphold. It forces the DPP to summon up the courage to prevent a repetition of the same mistakes.

That is why Chairman Tsai Ing-wen stressed that the Democratic Progressive Party is assuming all responsibility for Chen Shui-bian's wrongdoing. This is the only way the DPP and Taiwan can move forward. We hope the Democratic Progressive Party will walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.

Motivated by long-term comradeship, the Democratic Progressive Party condoned Chen Shui-bian's wrongdoing. Motivated by long-term comradeship, The public on Taiwan condoned the Democratic Progressive Party's wrongdoing. Experience has shown that ignoring right and wrong and condoning another's wrongdoing undermines his growth, and is detrimental to society's development. The Chen family's scandals are not the fault of Chen Shui-bian alone. The DPP and the public on Taiwan are also responsible. Everyone is busy pointing fingers at others. We should take a long, hard look in the mirror, and learn from our mistakes. If we do so, the Chen family corruption scandals will no longer be a lead weight that drags Taiwan down into the abyss. They will be rungs on a ladder that allow us to reach a higher level.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

The Special Investigation Group has completed phase one of its investigation of the Chen family's four major corruption cases. We can now draw some general conclusions about the defendants, the prosecutors, and the judges.

Prosecutors have indicted 14 defendants. They are seeking heavy sentences for four members of the Chen family. They are seeking light sentences for the other defendants. The reason is simple. The other defendants have come clean. They have also returned the money they took. The prosecution even requested immunity for some of them. The four members of the Chen family however, are stubbornly refusing to own up to their crimes. That is why prosecutors are seeking the heaviest possible penalties.

Based on evidence released by the prosecutors, and the huge sums repaid by other accomplices, the four members of the Chen family will find it difficult to elude justice. That being the case, the Chen family's stubborn refusal to cooperate is unwise. Chen Chi-chung and Huang Jui-ching are still young. They have long lives ahead of them. Are they really prepared to endure social ostracism for the rest of their lives? Do Wu Shu-chen and Chen Shui-bian really have the heart to drag Chen Chi-chung and Huang Jui-ching down with them?

Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's criminal behavior needs no further elaboration. Instead, let's look at the prosecution's enumeration of Chen Chi-chung and Huang Jui-ching's crimes. Both received higher educations. Neither is ignorant. One billion NT suddenly appears out of nowhere. How can they not know where it came from? Chen Shui-bian and Wu Shu-chen squirreled away 740 million NT in a Cathay United Bank vault. Chen Chih-chung and Huang Jui-ching have been in the vault at least twice. If the money was legitimate, why would they pass up the opportunity to earn a enormous amount of interest? Why pay substantial storage fees to let the cash sit idle in a vault? The two were also heavily involved in other overseas money laundering operations. They were unquestionably accomplices. The prosecution described how Chen Chi-chung and Huang Jui-ching behaved when they entered the vault and examined the 700 million dollars in cash. It was not a pretty picture. Add to this their unrepentant attitude following the commission of their crimes. The public is going to have a hard time forgiving them.

What's next? The four members of the Chen family should consider their situation carefully. When the trial begins, they should adopt the appropriate attitude, and offer the appropriate responses. If they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge responsibility, if Wu Shu-chen refuses to appear in court for the 18th time, if Chen Shui-bian runs amok, alleging "political persecution," they will only aggravate the Chen family's crimes. They will probably receive the maximum sentences allowed by law, and the eternal censure of the public on Taiwan.

As far as the prosecution is concerned, the Special Investigation Unit's performance can rightly be described as incompetent. A prosecutor's bill of indictment should not contain equivocations. It should not contain emotional language. It should factually enumerate the Chen family's crimes. It should provide evidence of crimes for public inspection. Prosecutors should not intentionally abet criminals. Nor should they arbitrary add criminal charges. These are the prosecutors' duties. As they follow up their investigation of the Second Financial Reform scandal, and the Secret Diplomacy scandal, the Special Investigation Unit should make a concerted effort to get to the bottom of things, and provide the public with a better understanding of the case.

Furthermore, prosecutors should pay attention to the public mood, and take advantage of the raised morale created by the Special Investigation Unit's handling of the case. They should take on major cases they failed to investigate in the past. They should transcend partisan loyalties. Regardless of their personal status, they should resume investigating and not let anyone off lightly. This would inject a breath of fresh air into the system, giving the justice system a prestige unprecedented in the nation's history. It would set bounds of propriety for politicians. It would establish inviolable standards of right and wrong for political struggles, making an unparalleled contribution to the nation's future.

The court has released Chen Shui-bian without bail, provoking intense controversy. Many people think the judges had good reason for the way they handled this first of four waves of prosecutions. But judges know defendants are likely to use the opportunity to coordinate their testimony. They know there will be a second wave of prosecutions. Yet they released Chen without demanding bail. Were they putting on a show of open-mindedness? Were they legal hacks? Or did they have ulterior motives? Moreover, the court stressed that Chen was not a flight risk. They made light of the possibility the suspects might coordinate their testimony. In fact Chen's lawyers have been brazenly coordinating their testimony. They have even denounced Yu Cheng-hsien for being too quick to spill the beans. Could this be what the court had in mind? Chen Shui-bian once again stands atop the commander-in-chief's observation deck. When the court comes up against Chen Shui-bian again, he will have mobilized his supporters. Wu Shu-chen will refuse to appear in court for the 18th time. Will the court be able to pass this test of its mettle?

The Special Investigation Unit has achieved a hard-won victory over the Chen crime family. Will it be defeated by a judge relaxed and kicked back in his chair?

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

History Will Remember How the DPP Dealt with the Chen Scandal China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC) December 16, 2008

Even at this late date, the Democratic Progressive Party persists in defending Chen Shui-bian, by shifting attention from Chen Shui-bian's crimes to due process and civil rights. It has reaffirmed the importance of the party's commitment to "clean government." But otherwise it has remained utterly silent on the issue of Ah-Bian and Ah-Cheng's rampant corruption. It has openly declared that it is putting friendship before justice. In an even more classic equivocation, the DPP has declared that Chen Shui-bian is "part of the Democratic Progressive Party's history," therefore "there is simply no question of disowning him." With this declaration, the DPP has effectively linked its fate to Chen Shui-bian's. Every scandal the Chen family has ever been involved in, will from this moment forward, become an integral part of the Democratic Progressive Party's political legacy.

The term "party assets" has a familar ring to it. For the past decade, they have been the Kuomintang's cross to bear. The KMT has been excoriated by the Democratic Progressive Party over "party assets," to where it could no longer lift its head. For quite some time, scholars have castigated the KMT's "Ruling Party State Capitalism." The KMT is able to defend itself against many charges. But just mention party assets, and it immediately backs down. The only explanation it has been able to offer, is that they were a "vestige of history." The party has been unwilling to deal with them by making a clean break with its past. For years they have been a thorn in the KMT's side. They even became an ATM machine for the Democratic Progressive Party come election time. But now the Democratic Progressive Party has declared that Chen Shui-bian is an "integral part of the DPP's history." We regret to inform the DPP that for the forseeable future, this "integral part of the DPP's history" will be a thorn in the Democratic Progressive Party's side, and leave the DPP unable to lift its head.

The Democratic Progressive Party has put "friendship" ahead of right and wrong. It has effectively drawn a line between itself and mainstream society. Just look at the poll results. A 3000 NT consumer voucher has people salivating. How can they possibly be expected to tolerate the Chen family's embezzlement of hundreds of millions, then squirreling the sum away in overseas accounts? Over half of the public opposes Chen's release without bail. Yet the DPP's response was "We are pleased." The DPP has given the public the impression that the DPP has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to every bit of eyewitness testimony and every piece of material evidence the Special investigation Unit made available.

From beginning to end, the Democratic Progressive Party's sole concern has been Ah-Bian's civil rights. Ah-Bian's accomplices have had to post astronomical sums to obtain release pending trial. Ah-Bian was able to obtain release without posting one thin dime in bail. The Democratic Progressive Party's response was "We are pleased." We suggest they conduct their own poll, and determine for themselves what the public thinks.

The Democratic Progressive Party's declaration has a ring to it. It sounds as if the DPP is "refusing to shirk responsibility," and is "willing to take responsibility." But what precisely is "taking responsibility?" Is the DPP going to repay the State Affairs Funds Ah-Bian embezzled? Is the DPP going to repay the political contributions the Chen family embezzled? Let's not forget that the Chen family even used the DPP as the head of a Chen family dummy account. Ah-Bian has cavalierly trampled over the DPP. Yet the DPP persists in defending him. Is this what they mean by "taking responsibility?" The Chen family scandals have exacted immense social and legal costs upon Taiwan. The Chen family scandals have destroyed Taiwan's international image. Has the DPP offered a single apology? No it has not. That being the case, what exactly does the DPP mean by "taking responsibility?" Does Taiwan owe the DPP an apology? Or perhaps Taiwan owes the Chen family an apology?

Do not underestimate the damage inflicted upon Taiwan by the Chen family's corruption scandals. They have destroyed the alleged core values of Chen's own Democratic Progressive Party. They have destroyed a decades long democracy movement, nurtured by an entire generation. They have destroyed the political platform erected by the DPP over many long years. Why not examine the matter calmly. How many of the DPP's political planks has Ah-Bian reduced to jokes? For example, who will ever dare to claim he is raising money for a "Nation-Building Fund?" Who will ever dare compare himself to Mahatma Gandhi? Who will ever have the nerve to conduct a hunger strike? Who will ever dare to write poetry or letters while in detention? Every one of these gestures has been reduced to a joke. Every gesture capable of affecting peoples' hearts, has been exploited by Ah-Bian and left devalued and worthless.

Chairman Tsai Ing-wen needs to be clear on one thing. The responsibility the Democratic Progressive Party needs to take is not to provide solace for comrades within the party, or to salvage the party's rapidly deteriorating political image. The responsibility the DPP needs to take is to own up to the harm inflicted upon Taiwan by the Chen family scandals. This harm is already past remedy. Think back to the promises made to the public during the first change in ruling parties. Reflect upon the core values you trumpeted in the past, such as "clean government." Compare them to the prosecution's bill of indictment against Chen Shui-bian. Read the testimony of Chen Cheng-hui, Koo Chung-liang, and Ma Yung-cheng. Read Wu Ching-mao's confession. Are Chen Shui-bian's civil rights really the DPP's sole concern?

Perhaps the Democratic Progressive Party is right. Perhaps Chen Shui-bian is part and parcel of the DPP's history. Perhaps there is no possibility of disowning him. But history does not care about the Democratic Progressive Party's emotional problems. When the entire Democratic Progressive Party hierarchy is uniformly silent in the face of the Chen family's corruption scandals, history will record that fact for posterity.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Direct cross-Strait links, or "da san tong" have been obstructed for nearly 50 years, and debated for nearly twenty years. Beginning today, direct cross-Strait links are official policy. This means the full implementation of direct air passenger, maritime shipping, and postal links. Maritime shipping will no longer need to go through a third destination. Weekend charter flights will be expanded to include daily charter flights. Cross-Strait mail will only require two-days to reach its destination. This is an historic moment. What kind of changes will direct cross-Strait links lead to? At the moment that remains hard to predict. But we can be sure private sector cross-Strait interaction will have far-reaching effects.

Take weekend charter flights. They have already been increased to 108 flights per week. It used to be difficult to get weekend charter flight tickets. That has all changed. Air routes have also been straightened out. It is no longer necessary to detour through the Hong Kong Flight Information Region. This substantially shortens flight times. Take for example, the most heavily traveled air route, the one between Taipei and Shanghai. It now takes only 83 minutes. It is now possible to attend a morning meeting in Shanghai and get return to Taipei by dinnertime. A "cross-Strait commute" will become a reality. This will yield immediate benefits, facilitating the return of Taiwan businessmen and mainland spouses to Taiwan during next month's Spring Festival. The traditional "Spring Festival Charter Flights" will be a thing of the past.

Of course, weekday charter flights are merely an extension of weekend charter flights. They cannot replace regularly scheduled flights. In fact, six to seven hundred flights between Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, and 108 weekday charter flights, are not enough to meet the demand. This will be one of the key points addressed at the secnd Chiang/Chen Meeting during the first half of next year. If all goes well, they will sign a formal agreement on regularly scheduled cross-Strait flights. For years, passengers on both sides of the Strait have been forced to detour through Hong Kong and Macao, or resort to the Kinmen-Xiamen mini three links. If the agreement is signed, these detours, and even charter flights, will be a thing of the past.

Maritime shipping detours have also had a negative impact. Beginning today, eleven Taiwan ports will be directly linked to 63 mainland ports. Ships will no longer have to detour through foreign ports. The savings in time and money will be considerable. Estimates are that 16 to 27 hours can be saved on each voyage, amounting to a savings of 15 to 30 percent in transportation costs. Based on current estimates of 4000 cross-Strait container ship voyages, this means a savings of at least 1.2 billion NT. Cross-Strait voyages are expected to increase dramatically, creating many more profit opportunities.

Cross-strait direct shipping will revolutionize cross-Strait economic and trade relations. Several ports will immediately experience a boom. These include Taipei, nearby Keelung, and Taichung, including Taichung Industrial Park. Even Kaohsiung can look forward to regaining its status as the world's largest capacity deep-water container port. According to preliminary estimates, cargo volume will increase 30 percent as a result of direct shipping. In particular, if Taiwan's ports become a southern China region container transhipment center, international shipping will also increase substantially. Do not underestimate the significance of this change. Taiwan's geographical location already gives it a competitive advantage. Taiwan may also be in the best position to become a regional transhipment center. In the past political obstacles deprived us of this unique opportunity. We must no longer pass it up.

The Republic of China has been politically isolated by the international community. It has suffered enough. If it is economically marginalized by the international community as well, then its circumstances will be even more dire. In two or three years, the East Asia free trade zone will gradually take shape. Many East Asian nations began planning long ago, formulating new trade strategies in response to new circumstances. While they were doing so, Taiwan remained trapped in a "no haste, be patient" quagmire, bickering endless over what constituted "effective management." Direct three links remained plans on paper. Add to this ideological quarrels, and who knows how much time was wasted, for no good reason. Manufacturers relocated, one after the other. Foreign operations pulled out. Taiwan's competitiveness declined. Now that the "da san tong" policy has finally been implemented, we truly are in a race against time.

The global financial crisis has plunged the world into economic recession. No one can guarantee that opening direct links will lead to immediate changes. After all, mainland China is also facing the same economic challenges. But at least this provides us with an opportunity. Financial and economic experts within the Cabinet, and industry leaders alike, are thinking about how to make use of this rare opportunity to renew their industrial competitiveness. The government is using the opportunity to expand both local and mainland demand, to attract foreign investors, and persuade foreign businessmen to establish operating headquarters on Taiwan, and to develop a regional operations center. Individual industries are thinking about regional deployment, how to establish new vertical and horizontal divisions of labor. Under "da san tong" these issues must be addressed as soon as possible.

About Me

Bevin Chu is a free market anarchist currently living in Taipei, China. His newest blog, An Enemy of the State, is his flagship blog. Articles from his previous flagship blog, The China Desk, have appeared at the wildly popular libertarian website LewRockwell.com, where Chu is a columnist/commentator; at Antiwar.com, the best known anti-war website on the Internet; and at the China Post, where he was a contributing editor. They have even appeared in Pravda -- the post Cold War, post Communist Pravda, of course.